Nobody Elected Elon Musk Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1145
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-06-09T17:53:43Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This legislation, titled the "Nobody Elected Elon Musk Act," aims to hold a specific special government employee personally accountable for legal claims against the federal government arising from activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a proposed entity within the Executive Office of the President focused on improving government operations.
Key Provisions
- Personal Liability for the Manager: The special government employee (defined under 18 U.S.C. § 202(a) as a temporary appointee serving without compensation or for less than 130 days in a year) who manages or oversees DOGE (or any successor entity) will be personally liable for any claims against the federal government related to DOGE's activities.
- Scope of Claims Covered: Liability includes claims stemming from violations of federal labor laws (e.g., workplace protections), data privacy laws (e.g., rules on handling personal information), threats to national or domestic security, federal appropriations laws (e.g., rules on spending taxpayer money), or any other federal statutes.
- Override of Other Laws: The provision applies "notwithstanding any other provision of law," meaning it supersedes existing protections that might otherwise shield individuals or the government from such liability.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Shift from Government Immunity: Under current U.S. law, the federal government often enjoys sovereign immunity (protection from lawsuits unless waived), and government employees are typically shielded by qualified immunity or indemnification (where the government covers their legal defense and damages). This bill removes those protections specifically for DOGE's manager, making them personally responsible for claims.
- Targeted Application: It introduces a narrow exception to general employee protections under laws like the Federal Tort Claims Act (which allows suits against the government but not individuals) and ethics statutes, applying only to the DOGE manager role.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Could deter individuals from taking on high-risk advisory roles in efficiency initiatives, potentially slowing or complicating DOGE's operations within the Executive Office of the President.
- On Citizens: May increase accountability for DOGE actions affecting workers, privacy, or security, potentially leading to more lawsuits from affected individuals or groups, but at the personal expense of the manager rather than taxpayers.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though if DOGE activities involve data or security issues with foreign elements, it could indirectly affect U.S. diplomatic or cybersecurity postures by heightening personal risks for overseers.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Special Government Employee Managing DOGE: Directly liable, facing personal financial and legal risks (e.g., the bill's title implies targeting figures like Elon Musk, associated with DOGE proposals).
- Federal Government and Taxpayers: Shifts potential costs of claims from public funds to the individual, reducing government exposure but possibly complicating recruitment for such roles.
- Employees and Citizens Impacted by DOGE: Workers, data subjects, or security stakeholders who might file claims under labor, privacy, or other laws, gaining a clearer path to accountability.
- Congress and Oversight Bodies: Enhances congressional leverage over executive branch initiatives by imposing personal deterrents on unelected advisors.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Raises questions about due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, as it singles out one role for unique liability without broad justification; could face challenges in court for being overly punitive or vague in scope.
- Constitutional Implications: Potentially conflicts with separation of powers by Congress imposing conditions on executive advisory roles, though it aligns with Congress's authority over appropriations and ethics (Article I).
- Political Implications: Serves as a partisan check on executive efficiency efforts, signaling opposition to external influencers in government without elected status; may fuel debates on advisory roles versus democratic accountability in the executive branch.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]
Cosponsors (26)
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray, Jr. [D-CA-31], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Jackson, Jonathan L. [D-IL-1], Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12], Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35], Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. McClain Delaney, April [D-MD-6], Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7], Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1], Rep. Foushee, Valerie P. [D-NC-4], Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-07: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-07: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Nobody Elected Elon Musk Act — issued 2025-02-07 — PDF (2 pages)